Ethics Sage Websites

03/31/2015

The movie Insurgent, the second in the Divergent series, raises all kinds of ethical questions, many of which make it a worthwhile film to see. Overall, it deals with the “big brother” is watching theme. The government oversees population factions based on common values, a classification system meant to create a pathway toward civility in the aftermath of a period of destructive forces in society. These factions and their related moral features include:

Dauntless: Demeanor: Bold, daring, intense; Values: Courage, Bravery

Abnegation:Demeanor: Reserved/unassuming, not drawing too much attention, lack of vanity, Values: Honesty and sees the truth as black and white

Candor:Demeanor: Honest/candid; Values: Tell the truth in every situation

Factionless:Demeanor: Failure to complete initiation into whatever faction is chosen, living in poverty, doing the work no one else wants to do (janitors, construction works, garbage collectors, make fabric, operate trains, drive buses).

Beatrice "Tris" Prior is the main protagonist and narrator of the Divergent series. She is a strong-willed sixteen-year-old girl who hates showing weakness. Though Tris was born in the faction Abnegation, she eventually transferred to Dauntless and must face the fact that she is Divergent. When she arrived in her new faction, she opted for a change of name to go by. She decided to use Tris as a nickname for Beatrice, hoping for a fresh start in a new faction.

The problem for Divergents is the government has no tolerance for those who do not fit into the classification scheme. From an ethical point of view, we might say that non-conformists are treated unfairly simply because of having different character traits from the “norm.” Imagine if this idea extended to all of the population in a country like the USA. The non-conformists would probably rule the day because there is strength in numbers, and the conformists would be treated as though they were the outcasts.

What makes “Insurgent” a modern play on morality is that Tris encounters a wide variety of moral issues that can best be viewed through the lens of the film itself. Here are some quotes:

“I’m just one person; I’m not worth it” – spoken when Tris considers submitting to death rather than seeing others suffer, reflecting a utilitarian understanding that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, something I recently blogged about.

“Dark times call for dark measures, but I am serving the greater good” – or, in other words, “the ends justify the means.” We can relate this to the current conflict (war?) with ISIS and ISIL. That is, fighting a war may be wrong but its ends of "degrading" and "destroying" an evil enemy make it justified from a moral point of view.

“May the truth set you free.” Honesty is the best policy and leads to a clear conscience.

The movie Insurgent may seem to be plodding for most of the film but when evaluated from an ethical point of view, it gives much food for thought. I plan to use it in my ethics class that starts this week. What better way to engage students in a discussion of the ethical messages in an ethics course than to use a popular film as the messenger.

The bottom line for me is that people change during their lifetime. They grow and develop, not only physically and mentally but morally as well. Moral development should be nurtured for it to thrive and impact others in a positive way. Insurgent send this kind of a message as Tris proceeds on her journey to create a better world. A world that, as we learn at the end of the movie (SPOILER ALERT!!!) is exactly what the founders had in mind.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 31, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

03/24/2015

Personal Values and Organizational Culture are the Foundation of Whistle-blowing

The ethics of whistleblowing is a tricky matter. Whistle-blowing brings two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict. Doing what is fair or just (e.g., promoting an employee based on talent alone) often conflicts with showing loyalty (e.g., promoting a longstanding but unskilled employee). Taken to its extreme from a loyalty perspective, whistle-blowing may involve agonizing conflicts when, for example, it involves violating the trust of co-workers who have engaged in wrongdoing or jeopardizing one’s “team player” status by going against the prevailing winds in an organization that fosters unethical behavior.

From an ethical perspective, while loyalty is an ethical value it never should be placed above one’s ethical obligation to act responsibly and be accountability for one’s actions including reporting wrongdoing in the best interests of the organization and its stakeholders. Responsible people blow the whistle when they believe more harm than good will occur if the whistle-blower stays silent. A virtuous whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner if she truly believes a responsibility exists to protect the public interest. Such a person is willing to accept the consequences of her actions. i.e., she is accountable for her actions.

An ethical person is one who posseses strong character traits built on courage and informed by the belief that integrity is the backbone of ethical decision-making. A would-be-whistle-blower is willing to stand her ground even in the face of pressure from higher-ups to stay silent. It’s not because of the possibility of receiving a whistle-blower’s award. Instead, the whistle-blower believes in principled behavior and leads her life in accordance with ethical values.

But, what if a whistle-blower’s motive is to gain a financial reward such as is available through whistle-blowing complaints under the Federal False Claims Act and Dodd-Frank? Is it still an ethical practice?

The most important consideration in assessing whether a whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner is the intention for one’s action. Is it to right a wrong? Is it to give voice to one’s values in the face of countervailing forces? Or, is the basis for the action the pursuit of self-interests, which may manifest itself in blowing the whistle in order to cash in on the whistle-blower award? After all, greed is a powerful motivating force when considering whether to blow the whistle on financial wrongdoing.

While most would agree with the value of reporting wrongdoing and approve of good organizational governance, external contexts can color acceptance and perception. There are elements of chicken-and-egg, as attitudes that are encouraged in the workplace extend to the street -- if businesses promoted good corporate governance for all, whistle-blowing wouldn’t be viewed negatively or as solely the preserve of business or community leaders.

From a personal perspective, it could be argued that it is incongruous for human nature to display loyalty to a bureaucratic organization because it is composed of so many different people. This dehumanizing environment could distort the whistle-blower’s perception of their relevance within a company or their ability to influence change, thus degrading their sense of responsibility and motivation to report.

As long as the whistle-blower is sure that their motivations are sound and that they are confident in the system, they should not hesitate to relay such information and be pleased that they are helping to create a more ethical organization environment for stakeholders, all of whom benefit from the fair treatment, trustworthiness, and responsibility and accountability.

From an organizational perspective, it is important that even if hotlines are in place, the organization should not be complacent when it comes to its usage and communication. If a company doesn’t receive many whistle-blowing reports, it shouldn’t assume that no news is good news.

In addition, if companies don’t use the data collected from their reports in a progressive manner (analyzing trends, investigation and resolution, etc.) it negates the benefits of the service considerably. Businesses have a responsibility to the public to act on whistle-blowing intelligence or risk adverse consequences. They are additionally accountable to the governing bodies of their sector, such as the SEC, OSHA, EEOC, EPA, and other regulatory agencies.

It might seem obvious to my readers that I believe whistle-blowing is an ethical practice. After all, I blog about it all the time. I also am aware that ethics is easier said than done so it is safe to say that individual ethics are born of a culture of ethics. In an organization, this means to establish an ethical tone at the top that filters throughout and sets a standard that is enforced. The worst thing that can happen in an organization is for top management to say they believe in a code of ethics and then violate that very same code when it comes to their individual behavior.

And in a culture of ethics, whistle-blowing can come out of the cold.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 24, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

03/17/2015

Is it true that constantly telling your kids they're special can make them especially susceptible to narcissism? Are we raising a generation of narcissistic kids who think only about themselves all of the time and feel a sense of entitlement? Well, a new study released by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that narcissists aren’t born. There is no gene for narcissism. What’s worse, self-centered children are likely to grow up into self-centered adults.

This means that narcissism -- a self-centeredness which the study defines as feeling superior to others, fantasizing about personal success and believing one deserves special treatment -- isn't something that just happens organically. Researchers followed and surveyed 565 children ages 7 through 11 and their parents -- 415 mothers and 290 fathers. They found that parents who "overvalue" and overpraise their children during these formative years, often instilling a sense of entitlement, are more likely to raise narcissists.

"When children are seen by their parents as being more special and more entitled than other children, they may internalize the view that they are superior individuals, a view that is at the core of narcissism," according to the researchers.

In their book titled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell list some of the things that contribute to narcissism: public schools that tolerate mediocrity; a nurturing culture where everyone gets a trophy; social media, where everyone with an opinion can share it; a celebrity and reality show culture that tells Americans anyone can be famous. At the top of the list though: parenting.

So what is the antidote to this epidemic of narcissism? According to the book, it is balance. You can praise your kids, but always make sure what you're praising is an actual achievement or accomplishment. Don't just cheer them on for participating. They'll get enough of that, along with a handful of ribbons, from playing school sports.

On the other side of that coin, don't be afraid to set high expectations, demand that they be met, offer constructive criticism when necessary, and remind your children that — contrary to what they may be hearing from marketers and the rest of society — the world does not revolve around them.

Encourage them to think of the collective good, and not just focus on themselves as an individual. Remind them that, just as important as how they feel about themselves, is how other people feel about them. And, as often as possible, stress to them that while they shouldn't let anyone look down on them they also have a duty not to look down on anyone else.

Dr. Patricia Greenfield has argued that there’s been a cultural shift, one which she and Yalda Uhls have explored in several studies. One study examined the cultural context of fame, by looking at television shows from 1967 to 2007, and seeing what values these shows promoted by example and message to tween viewers, ages 10-to-12.

In 1977, shows such as “Laverne and Shirley” and “Happy Days” promoted a sense of community first. In contrast, by 2007, “Hannah Montana” and “American Idol” promoted fame first and foremost. Indeed, by 2007, the value of belonging or community had dropped to number thirteen—meaning that the values had literally switched places over the course of thirty years. And, of course, they also note that achieving “fame” seems possible by both YouTube and the social networking sites.

It’s not hard to understand how tempting narcissism driven by the desire for fame drives tweens and adolescents—witness the success of Justin Bieber and model Kate Upton, among others—to think “this could be me” and how that thought alone might be enough to outweigh any sense of caution or concern about the risks. But the risks are very real, leaving a child vulnerable to cruelty and bullying, at a time in life when egos can be fragile and self-esteem, a precious commodity.

So, are we raising a nation of narcissists? The question seems especially pertinent given the statistics released by Common Sense Media’s survey last fall which looked at media use by children from birth to age 8. A stunning 10% of babies under the age of one have used a smartphone, iPod, iPad or other tablet. 39% of 2-to-4 four year olds have and 52% of 5-to-8 year olds.

Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation of “no screens” under the age of two, 47% of babies age 0- to- 1 watch TV or videos for nearly two hours a day. In contrast, they’re read to for an average 23 minutes. 66% of children under the age of 2 have watched television, and television overall remains the most watched medium. Is it inevitable that fame will continue to impress even the youngest of children as being terribly important, particularly if their parents are posting pictures and videos themselves?

Parents prize independence in their kids today. Parents consistently rank "thinking for himself or herself" as a top priority for their children. Some scholars suggest this focus on thinking for oneself shows that parents value autonomy in their children, rather than obedience and conformity. If parents value autonomy, they will let the kids push them around, encourage their kids to focus only on themselves and ultimately raise a spoiled, entitled generation.

The scary thing is today’s kids become tomorrow’s parents and the cycle begins again. What can be done to combat narcissism? Schools need to work with parents to develop a curriculum dedicated to how selfless behavior works for the common good. For example, in the days following the devastating earthquake in Japan, word quickly spread about heroism displayed across the region—from the 50 brave nuclear workers, "The Fukushima 50" who stayed behind after evacuation in a valiant attempt to prevent further disaster, to a man who donned scuba gear and went into the tsunami to rescue his wife and mother.

Closer to home are the first-responders during 9/11 who put their lives on the line to save others. Were they thinking only about themselves or was their behavior other-centered? I think the answer is quite clear. These are actions worth emulating by our kids, not self-serving and a “what’s in it for me" pattern of behavior.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 17, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

03/10/2015

Trekkies like myself are still recovering from the death of the beloved Vulcan character in the original Star Trek series, Spock. Incredibly played by Leonard Nimoy who died ten days ago, Spock leaves us with many philosophical statements that cause us to reflect on the value of a human life. The most memorable, of course, is: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This statement was made by Spock in The Wrath of Khan. Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” This sets up a pivotal scene near the end of the film.

With the Enterprise in imminent danger of destruction, Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s drive so the crew can escape danger. Spock quickly perishes, and, with his final breaths, says to Kirk, “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock replies, “Or the one.”

I’ve been thinking about this classic statement from an ethical perspective and now realize what Spock was doing is applying the method of ethical reasoning known as Utilitarianism. It is a logical approach that weighs the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action and leads the decision-maker to act in a way that maximizes the net benefits to the various stakeholders involved. In this case, Spock considered that to save the lives of his shipmates and the ship, he should sacrifice his own life. Humans might argue in rebuttal that Spock had an inalienable right to live and while dying for one’s cause might serve the greater good, it doesn’t justify sacrificing a life.

Regardless of one’s predisposition towards ethical reasoning, the logic of Spock has made an indelible impression on millions of fans. The beloved character has broadened our philosophical perspective through sayings such as:

Change is the essential process of all existence.

--SPOCK, Star Trek: The Original Series, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"

Who can deny the wisdom of adapting to changing environmental conditions; responding to new challenges; learning from one’s mistakes and growing as a human being?

You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true.

--SPOCK, Star Trek: The Original Series, "Amok Time"

Spock's statement about desire profoundly reminds us that many people can't accept what they have and be happy. Instead, they seek out more; more money, more fame, and/or more power. We need to learn to be happy with our circumstances and not to want more simply for the sake of wanting more without any discernible improvement in the quality of our lives.

Without followers, evil cannot spread.

--SPOCK, Star Trek: The Original Series, "And The Children Shall Lead"

How true this is today as we watch Islamic terrorists recruit new soldiers in a way and in large numbers that most of us would never have believed back on 9/11, or even a few years ago.

One of my favorites is:

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

--SPOCK, Star Trek (2009)

As Rick Lewis points out in Philosophy Now, the goal of studying the structure of arguments is to think more clearly. This is the aim of critical thinking. The idea is to look at the argument for some position, see if you can identify its precise logical form, and then examine that form to see where it might have weaknesses. Just as philosophy in a sense underlies all other branches of human enquiry, so logic is the most fundamental branch of philosophy. Philosophy is based on reasoning, and logic is the study of what makes a sound argument, and also of the kind of mistakes we can make in reasoning. So study logic and you will become a better philosopher and a clearer thinker generally. The aspiration of logicians is to find rules of thinking that apply everywhere, under all circumstances, even on the USS Enterprise. Whether they have done so, or can do so, is itself an interesting philosophical question.

Spock was in life just as in death -- a prophet of sorts. His final tweet was:

A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP

Leonard Nimoy ended most of his tweets with the signature sing-off: “Live long and prosper.” Our lives have been enriched by the memorable character he portrayed as Spock. We will miss him but his legacy lives on in reruns of the television series and Start Trek movies.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 10, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

03/03/2015

Have you filed your income taxes for 2014 using an incorrect tax statement, known as 1095-A, that shows the value for local health care premiums related to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Some of you may have owed more taxes had you received the correct statement because you under-estimated your 2014 income thereby receiving a larger heath care premium from the government than you were entitled to. Those premiums could have been used to reduce the costs of insurance under the program by having the tax credit amount paid directly to the insurance company to offset the monthly payments or you could have claimed the credit against your taxes when you filed for the year. If you are one of the estimated 800,000 who received incorrect tax statements and one of the 50,000 of those whom, it is estimated, owe more money, don’t worry the IRS announced last week that it won’t collect those additional taxes. Almost six weeks into tax filing season, it is estimated that approximately 52% of people who enrolled in insurance through state or federal exchanges are finding they must pay back a portion of their tax credits.

Instead of taking action to correct a mistake, which, after all, we preach in ethics is the right way to correct for a wrong, the administration is covering up its mistake to avoid the political fallout of yet another level of incompetence in the administration of the Health Care Act. Imagine if you went into a bank to deposit a check, received cash back, and the teller gave you $100 too much. Would the bank say to you upon discovery it is OK to keep that amount since it made the mistake? I don’t think so. Then why should the government be held to a lesser standard of ethics? The answer is because we have a dysfunctional, incompetent government at all levels.

To make matters worse from an ethical perspective, the relief only applies to those who already filed their returns using the erroneous forms. Corrected documents will be sent out this month. The IRS suggests you wait to receive those forms if you haven’t as yet filed. Good luck with that from the perspective of those who estimate they owe more taxes because they (perhaps knowingly) under-estimated their income. I can see the rush now to file before the forms are received. Moreover, how in the world will the IRS even know whether a particular taxpayer received the corrected form before they filed. Are you telling me the agency keeps track of the dates when these forms are sent and matches them against when a taxpayer files the return? That would be giving the IRS too much credit for competency.

If you have already filed your return and were owed a refund because you over-estimated your income, then you can file an amended 1040 form for 2014 to get the additional money back from the IRS. Sure, place the burden on the taxpayer to go back to one’s tax preparer, pay them some more money, and get a larger refund, the amount of which may be equal to or less than the cost of paying that tax preparer.

Now the Obama administration says it will allow people to sign up for insurance plans on HealthCare.gov through April. The extension of the enrollment period past the February 15 deadline is aimed at giving some consumers a chance to minimize tax penalties for going without coverage in 2015, officials said. It is also likely to boost sign-up numbers for the law’s second year.

More politics are played with the result being a level of “moral hazard” that boggles the mind. If there is no penalty for late enrollment, then why should anyone enroll on time? There are no consequences for not doing so. If those who already have filed their taxes and owe more money to the IRS because of the underestimation of their income receive a pass, then why should those who waited to pay their taxes and were equally over-subsidized be made to pay the proper amount? How is that fair? Why should they be penalized for waiting when the government makes a mistake?

We live in a country where competent government is an oxymoron. We see it in the Health Care Act, the operations of the Veterans Administration, the IRS, and other state and federal agencies. Congress is awash in incompetency and can’t get its act together on so many important issues facing the nation, not the least of which is a strong immigration policy especially in light of the growing threat of radical Islamist terrorism hitting the homeland. The root cause is a culture of incompetence that has built up over time as we have morphed from a ‘can do’ attitude to an ‘it’s easier to kick the can down the road’ approach to decision-making.

The sad part of it is those of us who play by the rules often suffer the consequences of those who skirt the rules or are left off the hook by the government to cover up its mistake.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 3, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

02/17/2015

The debate continues whether the movie The American Sniper portrays a real American hero, Chris Kyle, or a racist who was out to kill as many Iraqis as possible without regard for the value of a human life, with hatred in his heart, and with nothing resembling a moral compass. The movie has become an American phenomenon in the one month since its release and now is the highest grossing war movie since Saving Private Ryan.

The support for the story of Chris Kyle is compelling. The underlying reason, I believe, is the lack of true American heroes. Try naming five American heroes today especially those with a public persona who might serve as an inspiration to others. No, make it two or three. On the other hand, is it ethically appropriate to hold up a person who reportedly killed about 160 Iraqis as a hero in a time when human life is being devalued?

Now it’s being asked whether the notoriety of the film, and Chris’ actions itself, are responsible for the deplorable killing of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Was Chris Kyle a racist who lived and breathed killing Iraqis without any sense of remorse? This is an important question that supporters and opponents of the film should consider.

I have read all sorts of comments and blogs about the meaning of the movie and Chris Kyle’s life. The most damning comments come from Chris himself. In an interview with BBC, Chris made the statement that “Every person I killed I strongly believed that they were bad. When I do go face God there is going to be lots of things I will have to account for, but killing any of those people is not one of them.” In his memoir Chris says “I hate the damn savages. I couldn’t give a flying f..k about the Iraqis.”

As much as I liked the movie and was drawn to Chris’ persona I have to admit that his thoughts and words are troubling even after serving four tours of duty in Iraq where his mission was to kill as many “bad guys” as he could. On the other hand I also wonder whether a sniper, any sniper, can be tasked with killing Iraqis to save American lives and not feel the way Chris felt. What was he supposed to think? That killing was wrong? He wouldn’t have volunteered for four tours of duty if he felt that way. Do we truly believe that he should have focused on the value of a human life before pulling the trigger? This is unrealistic at best but it is the subject of thoughtful reflection once he returned and in the aftermath of so much death and carnage.

Other comments intrigue me as well including those from Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir who writes: “American Sniper, the movie, is a character study about a guy who sees himself as fundamentally honorable and decent, but whose simplistic moral code turns out to be exceptionally poor preparation for the real world and real warfare.”

I agree the movie is a character study but it’s more about how a soldier holds together a family life and being a husband and father in the midst of the killing. It’s about how someone who was expected to kill the enemy can transition to a normal life after four tours in a war zone. It’s about how someone whose Raison D'être was to kill can be a contributing member of society upon his return to civilian life. It’s amazing how, in a time when 1 in 8 soldiers returning from war have PTSD, Chris Kyle could escape it given his charge and, instead, turned to helping others like him to overcome the affliction. Ironically, Chris was killed after his return from Iraq by just one of those he tried to help.

Some of the negative comments have been downright embarrassing including Michael Moore who tweeted that his uncle was killed by a sniper in World War II and he was always taught “snipers were cowards.” This implies snipers should come face to face with the people they are supposed to kill before killing them. Please, Michael, the phrase war is hell is there for a reason. It’s not surprising to me that Moore views everything from his own lens rather than to take an objective look at a story and consider both sides.

Then there is Seth Rogan – Seth Rogan for goodness sake – whose credibility should be gauged by the movies he makes such as the moronic The Interview. He chimes in with the tweet that the movie reminded him of a Nazi propaganda film in the 2009 flick Inglorius Basterds. He later backtracked posting, “I just said something ‘kinda reminded’ me of something else. I actually liked American Sniper.” Seth should stick to making asinine movies.

For me Chris Kyle is not a hero because to me a hero is someone for others to emulate. I suppose you could make the case that if you are going to war, Chris’ approach to battle is one to emulate. Nevertheless, a hero reflects on his/her actions after the fact and tries to learn from them – become better people. But, perhaps Chris did just that in helping returning soldiers with PTSD. The issue is a complicated one and let's not forget that Chris didn't consider himself a hero.

If Chris had been more thoughtful about what he had done and its consequences on the lives he ruined he would be a true hero to me. A sniper can be the best at what he does but still question his actions after the fact. Why did I do it? Was it worth it? Was it justified? What did we accomplish by destroying Iraq without provocation? Was it a moral act? These are questions a true hero considers – one who should serve as a role model for others.

I suppose Chris Kyle and American Sniper would have found unanimous support among the American viewing public for its message if Chris had been more reflective and remorseful. Then again we may be expecting too much from someone who did not have the luxury of time to think about what he was about to do. If he had, he probably would have been killed in battle a long time ago.

For me the moral of the Chris Kyle story is to kill another person you have to hate that person, not for their ethnicity but because that is the only way to survive. Chris embodied that spirit and, as a soldier tasked to kill Iraqis, he reached the pinnacle of his “profession.” Love him or hate him, Chris truly believed he was fighting for our freedom. Who are we to judge him having not been to war ourselves?

“Don’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes” is part of a proverb that dates back to the Cherokee tribe of Native Americans. Nelle Harper Lee was seemingly inspired by the saying in her classic book “To Kill a Mockingbird,” where she wrote,

“You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 17, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

I feel fortunate to be teaching at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo where a culture of ethics and civility permeates activities on campus and relationships with colleagues. The tone is set at the top and, for me, it is the ethical tone that guides campus behavior. Today we face the challenge of sexual assault on female students that has been a problem on other college campuses around the U.S. Hopefully, this problem will be handled with a sense of urgency and standards set for student behavior and interactions with others built on ethics, civility, and respect.

I recently read the 2015 Survey of Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) that was conducted by Inside Higher Ed that concerns me a great deal having conducted myself in accordance with these values stated above. According to the survey,

Almost three-quarters of CAOs (71 percent) are very or somewhat concerned about declining civility among higher education faculty.

CAOs indicate that professors are likelier to treat students civilly than they are to treat their faculty peers or administrators that way.

More than 8 in 10 provosts (83 percent) agree or strongly agree that civility should be a criteria for evaluating performance.

In his bestselling book ‘The No Asshole Rule’ Robert Sutton, a professor at Stanford University, has a lot to say on the topic of assholes in the workplace. He cites work by Teresa Amabile, who did a series of controlled experiments using fictitious book reviews. While the reviews themselves essentially made the same observations about the books, the tone in which the reviewers expressed their observations was tweaked to be either nice or nasty.

I found Sutton’s premise to apply to academic institutions as well. I publish a lot of research papers and have often encountered reviewers who feel the need to put my work down or belittle my thesis. Thankfully, I managed to put those nasty comments aside and revise my papers so that the research was published in many peer reviewed journals.

I also encountered nastiness during my Ph.D. thesis-writing days. Advisors would undress me before their peers perhaps to seem relevant and to convince colleagues they were doing their job. I always accepted the overly-critical comments that bordered on abuse as part of the academic culture.

During my early days as an assistant professor I recall making presentations on my research where a professor from my campus, or others from other campuses attending the session, felt the need to be critical of my work. I never quite got it especially since the motivation for those critical comments seemed to be simply to be critical and sometimes criticized points I did not make. Professors are quite adept at promoting their own points of view regardless if they are on point.

Now that I am a seasoned professor I have the luxury of looking back on my 30+ years of academic experience and observe that offering critique and being critical are two different things, the latter which is generally unproductive. As in life, professors need to learn that the way we say something is just as important, perhaps even more important, than what we say.

Debate and disagreement are critical constructs in the role of universities in society and educating tomorrow’s leaders. We must remember that discourse should be conducted in a civil manner with respect for our colleagues and the administration. Reasonable people disagree, but we can disagree without sacrificing respect. The First Amendment guarantees our right to speak as we wish, but we are stronger if we can argue and debate without degrading others.

I recall reading a document prepared by the leadership at Penn State University that addresses civility in campus debate. According to Penn State’s academic leaders, respect is a core value at the institution. The administration asks faculty to consciously choose civility and to support those whose words and actions serve to promote respectful disagreement and thereby strengthen their community.

Now, Penn State has been through a lot since the sexual abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky first surfaced and the role of legendary football coach Joe Paterno was questioned. I have blogged about this issue before and the damage it did to an otherwise model institution – at least with respect to its football program. Perhaps the civility document is a result of heated campus debates on this issue.

I have argued before that the lack of civility is a national issue, promoted by a growing community involved in posting anonymous comments on the Internet and the questionable taste of much of the chatter on social media. As professors we should not follow their lead, not if we are to live up to our responsibilities as academics and serve our students as role models.

In a study titled, “Virtuous or Vitriolic: The Effect of Anonymity on Civility in Online Newspaper Reader Comment Boards,” University of Houston assistant professor Arthur D. Santana at the Jack J. Valenti School of Communication found a significant correlation between anonymity and civility. Comparing the tone of thousands of online comments posted by anonymous and non-anonymous users following online newspaper stories, Santana found that 53.3 percent of anonymous comments included language that was vulgar, racist, profane or hateful; only 28.7 percent of non-anonymous comments were found to be uncivil.

We live in a time where negative comments abound. Everyone is critical of everyone else. We see it all the time on the major cable news shows. It has infected our society. Academics should be above the fray and live up to our responsibilities to promote intellectual curiosity, free speech, and debate of the issues facing us in academe and in the country in a way that is respectful. After all, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 11, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

02/09/2015

This is the second of a three-part series on the ethics of academics. My blog on February 4 dealt with politically correct speech on college campuses. Today's blog looks at Harvard University's recently announced ban on sexual relationships between professors and undergraduates. On February 11, I will look at civility on campus.

Today's blog is done in a tongue-and-cheek way built on a cynical belief about Harvard's new policy. The University announced last week that it will ban such sexual relationships but the ban does not seem to include graduate students in Master's and Ph.D. programs. This makes no sense because professors are more likely to be sexually attracted to older, more mature students.

Harvard’s previous policy only banned sexual relationships between professors and the students they taught. This also makes no sense because a professor can’t be sure a student not currently in his/her class will become a student at a later date.

Harvard released a statement saying a specially appointed committee "determined that the existing language on relationships of unequal status did not explicitly reflect the faculty's expectations of what constituted an appropriate relationship between undergraduate students and faculty members ... therefore, the committee revised the policy to include a clear prohibition to better accord with these expectations."

The new rule reads, "No FAS [Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Faculty member shall request or accept sexual favors from, or initiate or engage in romantic or sexual relationship with, any undergraduate student at Harvard College." Previously, the University had prohibited sex between professors and students only where the student was under direct supervision of the professor without defining what this means. Harvard said in a statement that the clarification of rules came as part of a review of its compliance with Title IX policies that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

"As part of this process, we thought a lot about the way that power dynamics can contribute to sexual harassment," Alison Johnson, a Harvard history professor who led the committee said in an email, adding that the policy makes clear "a longstanding expectation that professors focus on the intellectual development of our students." No kidding!

Why in the world would Harvard have allowed such relationships to go on for so long? Don’t they teach about the dangers of such entanglements in the workplace? Isn’t fairness in performance evaluation a key component of human resource courses at Harvard? Don’t they discuss social responsibility issues and the need to protect against sexual harassment charges?

The action comes nearly a year after the U.S. Department of Education announced it was investigating 55 colleges and universities, including Harvard, for violations pertaining to Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination on college campuses.

In the past, many U.S. colleges have lacked a formal policy on professors dating students. That has begun to change in recent years, with schools either barring professors from having sex with students they oversee or requiring them to recuse themselves from such situations. I’m not sure what they mean by “recuse themselves from such situations.” Does it mean the offending faculty member should find another professor not so similarly biased to grade students with whom the professor of record has had sexual relations?

Harvard’s policy doesn’t go far enough. It should take a cue from Arizona State University and other schools that have expanded the dating prohibition to include any student whom the professors have a chance of overseeing.

Arizona State University faculty voted on January 25 to revise a policy on dating between faculty and students, which might avoid more situations like Tasha Kunzi says she found herself in with a graduate school ­professor in 2010.

Kunzi's course work suffered after she ended a "personal relationship" with the professor, she claimed in a lawsuit filed in federal court.

He kept telephoning and texting her, according to the suit. He told colleagues in the School of Criminology and ­Criminal Justice about the relationship. (How ironic is that -- The School of Criminology and Criminal Justice?) The school assigned her clerical work, instead of research, and she found it ­difficult to complete her Ph.D. The ­harassment and retaliation forced her to withdraw from the doctoral program, she said.

The professor was fired for violating the university's amorous- ­relationship policy, according to ASU dismissal documents obtained ­under public-records ­request. ASU's policy required him to disclose the relationship and immediately remove himself from a position of academic authority over the student. Pratt initially denied having an amorous relationship with the unnamed student, according to university documents.

Kunzi's federal lawsuit was settled out of court with Pratt, shortly after she asked the court to dismiss the regents and another party. The state paid Kunzi and her attorney $44,000 last year.

Sexual relations between parties in a workplace setting is nothing new. However, getting romantically involved with someone in the workplace is always risky business. Despite their popularity, romantic interludes can ruin a career. It is no different in an academic setting. What’s different is the obvious power that faculty have over their students, a major factor in sexual harassment cases. I’d like to believe such lapses are a temporary case of moral blindness. However, I can’t stop there because as role models we should know better.

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 9, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

02/04/2015

Mr,” “Mrs.,” and “Ms” are being shown the door at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. “Allowing students to use their preferred name and eliminating the use of pronouns and official correspondence is a necessary step toward protecting the rights, privacy, and safety of students,” said Dominique Nisperos, co-chair of the Doctoral Students’ Council at CUNY, adding that the DCS has been battling marginalization and working specifically to support gender nonconforming students for several years.

At CUNY, school staffers have been advised to refrain from using gendered salutations in correspondence with students—and instead use a student’s full name, according to an internal memo sent out last month. The directive pertains specifically to administrators’ written interactions with students and prospective students, said Tanya Domi, a school spokeswoman.

But the memo says the policy should be “interpreted as broadly as possible” and was sent to all faculty at the Graduate Center. “My interpretation was that I was being asked to adhere to this policy, as were the other professors who received the letter,” said Juliette Blevins, a linguistics professor at the school. The policy went into effect during the spring 2015.

The memo calls the policy part of the Graduate Center’s “ongoing effort to ensure a respectful, welcoming and gender-inclusive learning environment…and to accommodate properly the diverse population of current and prospective students.” CUNY’s interpretation of Title IX legal principles is ridiculous. To assume the University must bar gendered salutations because of the law is another step down the proverbial ethical slippery slope of what words can and cannot be used in an academic setting.

This brings me to the main topic of this blog – the use of politically-correct words on college campuses. Political correctness is an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. Mainstream usage of the term began in the 1990s by right-wing politicians who used the term as a shorthand way of conveying their concerns about the left in academia and in culture. A 1991 article used the term to refer to U.S. academic policies that sought to increase multiculturalism through affirmative action, prevent “hate speech,” and change the content of the university curriculum. The term was also used by conservatives to criticize progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in U.S. secondary schools. These debates about curriculum changes have been referred to as a Culture War.

Increasingly, college campuses are restricting the use of certain terms or expressions under the guise of “Speech Codes.” The classic speech codes directly restrict speech because of it expresses views that are prejudiced against a particular group of students. For example, Northern Arizona University prohibited harassment defined as “stereotyping, negative comments or jokes, explicit threats, segregation, and verbal or physical assault when any of these are based upon a person’s race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, veteran status or sexual orientation.”

Now, some will argue that any restriction of speech is unconstitutional. Accordingly, while what is considered 'hate' speech is often reprehensible and unfair, it is still speech and thus is protected by the First Amendment. Some believe that colleges have crossed the line on restricting free speech on campuses in the name of political correctness.

I do not believe in any restrictions on speech on college campuses. While I abhor words like the “N” word, I believe it’s best to discuss and debate the issue in the broader context of using any racially charged word or expression in society. This is particularly problematic on a university campus where students should be encouraged to learn through debate, investigation and through exposure to a wide variety of opinions and ideas. Rather than restricting offensive speech, universities should be encouraging students to learn through open debate and study. Moreover, when prejudice and hate are out in the open on campus, students get an opportunity to expose, discuss, and dissect offensive language in a way that encourages communication rather than stifling it. Maybe students will learn to understand and respect each other in a way not normally explored in society because of political correctness.

The purpose of a university is the development of thinking and the exploration of ideas. There may be times in which those ideas are unpopular or controversial, and times in which they are even counter-productive. The prevailing idea behind bans on speech seems to be that it ostracizes certain groups or individuals when ideas are expressed. However, the better approach would seem to be to allow all ideas to be expressed, regardless of the content. Banning so called "hate" speech requires an interpretation of which ideas are harmful, which always bears the risk of an overly expansive censorship that degrades the free exchange of ideas. Hate speech is abhorrent and often leads to nothing good. Despite that, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to free speech.

I remember a scene from the 1955 movie The Blackboard Jungle where the teacher is trying to explain the harmfulness of hate words and equating it to how a fight begins in the schoolyard. Here’s what the teacher said:

“Yeah, I know you're just kidding. That's how things start. Like a street fight. Somebody pushes somebody in fun. Somebody pushes back, and soon you got a street fight with no kidding. That's the same way with name-calling. All right, West, look. You're of Irish decent. So is Murphy over there. You call him a Mick. He calls you a Mick. Suppose Miller called you a Mick. Is that all right? Then you call him a Nigger.”

To expect today’s students in college to adhere to a politically correct code of behavior or speech is wrong. When we control speech we control the discussion and the dialogue. This is not what a democracy is about and amounts to nothing more than political indoctrination to a particular point of view. For me it’s not a liberal vs. conservative point of view, although that is often the context for the discussion of free speech on college campuses. For me it’s a question of academic freedom. For me it’s whether we want a truly open society and to educate students in the academic fact that words matter. Words express our thoughts and beliefs. Words reveal the kind of person we are. Word reveal our character.

The French philosopher Voltaire famously stated, to paraphrase: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 4, 2015. Professor Mintz teaches in the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.

02/02/2015

So Mitt Romney told his supporters last Friday that he won’t run for President in 2016. He made the right choice from an ethical perspective, at least in my opinion, because he has done nothing the past four years of his life to qualify him to run again.

As far as I can tell, Romney has done virtually nothing to convince me he has the public interest at heart. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t held a job like forever. His main “accomplishment” since losing the 2012 election to Barack Obama was to join the board of directors of Marriott International in December 2012 for a third stint as a director. He also began working as executive partner group chairman for Solamere Capital, a private capital firm in Boston owned by his son Tagg.

One of the basic values that inform my life is civic duty. I mean service to others – those needier; or through public service; or through charitable activities, to name a few. To his credit, Romney and his wife, Ann, have been charitable during their lifetime and they support several charitable causes. Of course, the latter ties into the Mormon requirement to tithe ten percent of one’s income to the Church.

I feel Romney hasn’t earned the right to run again because he lacks a commitment to public service. Moreover, what has he done since the last election to demonstrate a commitment to reverse the notion that he is a snob and insensitive to those in need? You’ll recall his statement during the 2012 campaign to a group of wealthy donors gathered at a high-dollar campaign fundraiser that there’s a group of voters he believes he can never win over: people who pay no taxes. Some say that statement doomed his chances to become President. Here’s what he said:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what… There are 47 percent who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”

The fact is this is a truthful statement if you limit the tax discussion to the federal income tax. The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that in 2011, 46 percent of tax filers paid no income tax, vs. about 54 percent of tax filers that did have some federal income tax liability. In 2009, the Tax Policy Center estimated the proportion who paid no taxes was 47 percent.

However, that doesn’t mean the 47 percent are deadbeats, as many believed Romney was saying. About half of people who don’t pay income taxes are simply poor, and the tax code explicitly exempts them.

For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax because their $12,800 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,950 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The remaining Americans who owe no federal income taxes are benefiting from tax breaks, the center found.

Romney has proven he is out of touch with the average American. He has done nothing in the past four years to make me feel differently.

Contrast Mitt Romney’s activities with those of another would-be candidate, Jeb Bush, and we see that the later has a stronger claim to represent the Republic Party in 2016. Regardless of how you feel about “Common Core” educational standards, after leaving public service in 2008 Bush has been an advocate for change in the educational standards for K-12 students. While serving as Governor of Florida, Bush served as a Board Member for the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).Created by Congress, the board's purpose is to establish policy on reports examining K-12 students' academic progress in America's public and private schools. Since then Bush's education foundation has advocated for the Common Core State Standards Initiative. In October 2013, referring to opponents of the standards, Bush said that while "criticisms and conspiracy theories are easy attention grabbers, he instead wanted to hear their solutions to the problems in American education."

Bush has also been an advocate for immigration reform, albeit on a more liberalized basis than other candidates for the Republican nomination. Regardless of your viewpoint on this issue, he has demonstrated a great deal of passion on the education and immigration issues. This is a quality lacking in Romney and, I believe, it is not in his DNA. That is why he would have had no chance of beating whoever the Democrats put up in 2016, widely believed to be Hillary Clinton.

Passionate belief in helping those in need was as hallmark of President Obama’s campaign. He made us believe he stood for something. Again, regardless of your political affiliation and personal beliefs, Romney had his chance to convince the American people he could feel their pain whether it was the poor or middle class – and he failed.

The ironic thing is Romney, who espouses the virtues of Capitalism, misses the key point that the way the system is supposed to work is for all to benefit from economic development. Ethically, it should be based on “Enlightened Egoism,” that is, the benefits of the system should be for all Americans. Decision makers should act only after considering how their actions affect others and not in an egoistic, pursuit of self-interest way. After all, isn’t that the real complaint about corporate America today – it’s only for the upper class. The middle class gets squeezed more and more each year. Wasn’t that the rallying cry of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement?

Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 2, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.